Antithesis.
Antithesis.
§ 492. In our treatise On Scripture [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 1], §§ 105ff., we explained the opinion of our adversaries in the words of the Cens. Coloniens., Costerus, Eck, Stapleton, Molanus, and the bishops assembled at Bologna. To those we must add the following embellishments: Hosius, De expresso Dei verbo, vol. 1, p. 640: “Allowing the laity to read Scripture is giving what is holy to the dogs and casting pearls before the swine.” Harding, Contra Ivellum, art. 15, sect. 9: “It does not at all seem proper that any curious, stinking idiot should read the Bible in his own language.” Alphonsus Virvesius accuses Luther “for making free the divulging of Holy Scripture’s mysteries, for giving what is sacred to the dogs and casting pearls before the swine” (Philipp. 2. contra August. confess.). Anton. legatus Pyranens. urged that “the public reading of the Pauline Epistles to the people be forbidden because those Epistles are too favorable to the Lutherans.” Joh. Montolcinus was condemned to be burned because “in Bologna he had publicly read Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.” This is the reason why the inquisitors of heretical corruption, among other things, also ask about this point: “Has someone been reading the Bible?” Actually, they are being led by the same spirit about whom Justin writes: “Through the activity of the wicked demons, death rose up in accordance with the81 books of the reading prophets, with the result that, through fear, they stop men from achieving the reception of the knowledge of good and noble things, and their servants from enjoying them” (Apol. 2. pro Christ., p. 64); or by the same spirit as Julian the Apostate, about whom Cyril of Alexandria mentions in Contra Julianum, bks. 6-7: “He used to rebuke Christians with the accusation that they permitted women and children to read the Scriptures.”
§ 493. Most especially, they use this argument: “In the Bible, the sins of the saints are mentioned, which cannot be read by the unlearned without scandal.” Harding, Contra Ivellum, art. 15, sect. 5: “This is certain: some chapters and accounts of the Old Testament contain material that seems to provide an occasion for evil thoughts if women, virgins, and young people are allowed to read them.” Bellarmine, De verb. Dei, bk. 2, c. 15:
Not only would the people not receive fruit from the Scriptures, but they would also take harm from them. They would easily receive an occasion to err both in the commandments of life and of behavior. If an unschooled people were to hear read in their own common language from the Song of Songs: “Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth”; or that of Hosea: “Go, make for yourself … children of harlotry”; or the adultery of David, the incest of Tamar, the lies of Judith, etc.; and many others of those things that are mentioned with great praise in Scripture, they would be provoked to imitate this sort of behavior, or they would hold the holy patriarchs in contempt, or they would think there were lies in Scripture.
We respond. (1) The judgment of the ancients regarding the fruit to be expected from reading Scripture was far different. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres., bk. 4, c. 50, p. 287:
Regarding those pleasures about which the Scriptures themselves rebuked the patriarchs and prophets, the presbyter of Asia said from ancient times that we should not reproach them nor become like Ham, who laughed at the disgrace of his father and fell under a curse. Rather, he said that we should thank God for them because their sins were forgiven them in the coming of the Lord. But regarding those which the Scriptures do not rebuke but which are simply stated, we must not become their accusers. After all, we are not more diligent than God, and we should not be above our Master. Instead, we should look for the type, for none of those things are idle, whatever irreprehensible things have been stated in the Scriptures.
Tertullian, De habit. muliebri, p. 506: “All Scripture is suitable for edification.” Jerome, Apol. advers. Rufin., p. 108: “What shameful thing can be mentioned in the sacred books?” Epiphanius, Haeres. 69, p. 342: “Holy Scripture is life-giving and brings no offense to the faithful.”
(2) Scripture mentions not only the failures of the saints but also their conversion and the paternal chastisements imposed upon them by God because of their failures.
(3) In Biblioth., bk. 8, p. 621, Sixtus Senensis shows in detail that a consideration of their faults causes in us an increase of faith, erudition, fear, and hope.
(4) Bellarmine, in the same chapter, § 4, writes: “From the time of Ezra, the Hebrew language ceased to be the common tongue among God’s people.” Therefore it was common before the time of Ezra. Therefore the Israelites could read Scripture in their common tongue and actually did read it. If, however, we were to fear such damage in granting the reading of Scripture to the laity, they would also have had to fear it before the time of Ezra.
(5) What happens to something by accident cannot and should not hinder its proper use. When unfitting things arise from the reading of Scripture that is common to all, this is completely accidental.
In the next chapter, we shall speak more about the remaining arguments as well as about this one.
80 Read ducto instead of dicto.
81 Read tou;" instead of ta;".